On what grounds are you going to suggest it be illegal!?

Simply rounding up a bunch of homosexuals and whining to the media doesn't mean a practice should be illegal. For what reasons should it be illegal? Surely you have a reason other than personal disgust to take to law makers...

How about collective disgust?

You'll notice that virtually everyone else on this board has stopped posting here or hasn't posted at all. It's because they don't want to get involved in such a repugnant subject--that's how most communities feel about it. Government by consent of the majority, and that's how it should be.

Do you really think an animal rapist would take into account the size and perhaps the discomfort of the animal--especially when he wants to penetrate it? Pedophiles don't. I and my community don't see much difference between pedophiles and animal rapists, regardless of whether an animal is a possession.

Why should I care about a person who doesn't care about whether another entity is hurt or not as long as his lust is satisfied? He sure as hell doesn't care about what I think. And as the law stands in my state, he can go to jail.

"What doth it profit a man, if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" (Jesus). Of course, one has to have one in order to lose it.

(edited)

Collective disgust isn't sound legal basis for prohibiting beastiality or animal porn. To simply outlaw a practice based on personal disgust is discrimination. There are millions in America who would similarly like to see collective digust as a reason for legislation so as to outlaw sodomy between consenting adults. There are millions in America who would like to use collective disgust as a tool to outlaw pornography, expressions of art, body piercing, tattoos and certain television shows.

Also, the participation of other members has nothing to do with the legality of beastiality or interspecies pornography.

Majority consent is not how the government should work, and is not how it works when it is, in fact, working. Majority consent disregards justice in order to appease the masses. Law is about justice, not a mob mentality.

And while you may like to keep considering those who partake in such activity as "animal rapists," it simply isn't the case in every situation. A woman whose dog mounts her, or whose cat performs cunnilingus, is not raping their animal but rather allowing her animal to sexually engage her. Besides the fact that animals are not protected by law from rape, in such cases they are willing participants.

If a person of either gender takes it upon themselves to perform oral sex upon their animal, and the animal does not resist, the animal may again be a willing participant. Not every instance of beastiality or interspecies pornography would involve physical discomfort or abuse of an animal.

Edited to add: To better understand why laws should not be based on collective disgust, one need only to look at the recent Supreme Court decision regarding sodomy laws.

Originally, the ruling of a Supreme Court case in 1986 upheld anti-sodomy laws "based on the belief that 'homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable.'" Law based on morality, and many throughout the country, would rather prevent homosexual unions on the basis of morality rather than the more pragmatic approach of dealing with state interests. In ruling against anti-sodomy laws, the Supreme Court decided:
Not unlike your objections to bestiality, Paladin, there were those who condemned the right of homosexuals to have sex without the threat of prosecution.
Sounds mighty familiar from where I am sitting.

Laws written with no support but morality or collective disgust are arbitrary and discriminating. They seek out and prosecute individuals whose actions pose no threat to their fellow citizens or the nation at large.

Abs, PE's right, if the gov't serves the people, and the people feel that this is immoral, the gov't can't allow it to happen, case closed. And by allowing it to happen, the gov't then serves the sick people who conduct the act.

CP

To some people this act is sick, to some its weird, some people might not care about it, then some may practice it. It still remains illegal where it is illegal on the face value of disgust for those that made the law. As moral as someone may make it sound, is that in itself rationale. Lets us take a stab at something.

Murder is immoral right, what about when in self-defense, then its ok? You the reader might know that in some states self-defense can be found or tried as a crime, does that sound odd to you. Killing in self-defense is still the act of one human murdering another though is it not? Why can we make rational separations here but not in the department of animal rights. I can go and purchase dead animals of the value of taste, not because i was hungry. I can sell companies a million animals over time to test out the latest fashion fragrance, does that count as the same as bestiality.

The whole point is making something a crime on the base of some might find it vulgar is not the best way to go about it. Something that calls for punishment of humans in upwards of thirty years, meaning that person may die in prison, should be looked at in more detail. If bestiality is a crime in that states that it is in, do they have honest reasons for such, and is the punishment handed down just for such an act?

Morality alone is not a basis for law, Conservpat. There are millions who feel birth control, lying and premarital sex are immoral too. A lot of people consider adultery, not honoring their mother and father, and using the Christian god's name in vain is immoral. We simply don't legislate on the basis of morality alone. They did that with sodomy and it was overturned for good reason.


Law may occasionally reflect the moral standards of society, but in the pursuit of justice it must go further. Morality laws are arbitrary, discriminating and in the end they will be overturned (as demonstrated).

Abs, we live in a democracy [kind of], if the people want something to be illeagal, why shouldn't it be?

CP

Does anybody have information on how often it is currently enforced in states that have laws? My bet is not very often and only if it is flagrant or in combination with other offenses. In fact here is what my textbook has to say about it since 1800

American Sexual Histories by Elizabeth Reis: "Things Fearful to Name: Bestiality in Early America" by John Murrin


I emphasize "a year" because this is significantly less punishment than many here have listed and presume happens AND furthermore this was a black man in southern states during a turbulent period.

here is a second quote from the intro to the bestiality section of this book:

it seems just as with sodomy penetration is/was a key factor in the "crime" of bestialty. The article goes on to say

I thought the above information might be useful as background.

Well, because the majority only rules when it affects the majority.

Say, for instance, a man had sex with his dog in public. That would effect the public, and therefore would warrant legal action. However, the majority cannot tell me what I do in my private bed with my property. So a man, in the privacy of his own home, cannot be subject to legislation if it doesn't effect the majority. This is where bestiality falls.

So Senator Santorum's prediction about bestiality may become a reality.

How far behind will the arguments for bigamy, polygamy, and adult incest be?

Not far, I think.

Don't forget necrophilia Amlord.

Seriously.. Where does it end? Do we abolish all laws that are based on morality? You know being a moral person isn't so bad. Don't get me wrong, I am not being sanctimonious about this, but come on!

I think I will start a new topic on this...

The slippery slope may be a fun ride, but bigamy, polygamy and adult incest all bring different things to the table. With the two involving marriage there are tax incentives to consider. As long as there are benefits for those engaged in matrimony, there is a reason to maintain laws regarding these two practices. Neither have any sound legal foundation though were tax breaks for married couples to ever be eliminated.

While I have read a little about incestuous marriages, I'm not sure how the laws stand across the nation regarding simply the act of incest. I would, however, argue that it should be legal as well. There simply isn't a rational basis for making the act illegal if two consenting adults of the same family want to engage in any form of sexual intercourse.

The tax issue aside for bigamy and polygamy, the Supreme Court decision could easily apply to all three of these, as well as bestiality:Edited for posting purposes

Allowing these acts to be legal does not mean the government or society at large would go around encouraging such acts. If people choose to engage in such behavior, though, it simply isn't the business of the government or other people. As BeingHuman touched on, these acts don't affect the majority for us to have legislation prohibiting it.

In regards to the necrophilia comment, just to round out the slippery slope, I believe there is still a way to prohibit that act. While in essence the deceased is unable to give consent or be protected as a citizen under law, their remains would in effect become the possession of next of kin. Any sexual acts perpetrated against the corpse would be a violation of family property prosecutable by law.

Paladin Elspeth keeps telling me that I need to read this thread and throw in my two cents worth. With all the issues facing this country today, that's not even a double or nothing wager. This topic apparently doesn't need to be hashed over any further.


On what grounds would you suggest that I go to our Michigan legislators and say that bestiality should be made legal? I have helped push legislation through our state legislature. I have a great deal of respect for the men and women who choose that as an occupation.

Twenty-six of 50 states have not outlawed bestiality. That would appear to be a slim majority of the states, but it does not tell us which states, their population, or their representation in the House in Washington. Are those 26 states primarily agricultural?

I worked with a number of farmers over a thirty year period, who worked in the factory because farming wouldn't support their families. The argument they always made for bestiality was that they would rather see their son lose their virginity in the barn with one of the cows, than to take them in to town to hire a prostitute. Phrased that way, there appears to be no option to wait until marriage or at least until they are in a long term committed relation with another human. I never could understand how one learned foreplay, conversation, or any technique standing in a wheelbarrow behind a cow.

I could go to the legislature with data that it was practiced, and by inference approved by, 8 percent of males and 3.5 percent of females in the 1940's. That does not seem to represent an overwhelming voting bloc.

I could present the opinion of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a known religious fundamentalist, that one simply has to obey basic good practices when doing this. You wash yourself off to purify yourself, but as the animal is now unclean, it must be slaughtered immediately, and its meat and hide sold in a different village than the one that you live in. (And of course, use caution when mating with a lioness.) However, his opinions on pedophilia, and his reputation in the United States would probably leave the legislators very unimpressed.

Should I try to blackmail them? "Look. I know this law was not enforced in the past century, but I've seen pornography on the Internet that shows you mating with a giraffe at the Detroit Zoo and an elephant at the circus." That would probably result in the State Police seizing my computers.

If they responded at all, they might well counter with a look at the current laws on the topic in other countries. Some random research showed that it varies from a misdemeanor to a capital offense, depending on the country that you're in. Community standards in this case cross very broad borders. It is outlawed apparently in most nations.

The number of prosecutions mentioned earlier in this thread are minimal. Apparently, if it is practiced, it is being practiced in private and not in "Animal Pride" parades for all the world to see. We have a law on the books that may date back to 1835 for all I know. Most are reviewed periodically under something called a Sunshine Law, however. I can see this issue coming up for review, public hearings, and re-enactment with virtually no debate. No one feels threatened by a law on the books that is never enforced.

Finally, I was raised as a city boy. I always preferred taking a Playboy into the bathroom to a copy of Cattlemen's Monthly. Abs, if you want this law changed in Michigan; move here, become a resident, and start lobbying the legislature or start a petition drive. Making bestiality legal is not a fight that I am going to tilt at, I have spent enough years already being referred to in the papers as the town clown. I think I'll choose a side in the battle over proposed windmill farms instead.

I was not familiar with this.. Where does it say that a dead body becomes a possession of the immediate family members? Link please.

And to use the possession response: What of the neighbor of a family who owns a dog, lures him into his house to preform sexual acts with the dog. Is it now a crime because the dog is a possession? If so, what grounds?

It took more posts then i thought but we might actually get down to debating why it should be illegal then to say sorry, gross, time for the capitol offense. In all things made clear in this thread I have been privy to an incredible amount of dodging and weaving, none of my questions to date have been taken on, and the opfor seems to just want their same question looked at over and over again. To hit the nail on the head again, could you sentence someone to serve in prison for something like engaging in biological functions with a cow, to live among people who rape and murder and commit armed robbery?

Wording for the kids.

I don't want to stray too far from the topic being discussed here, Sleeper, but I'm making the assumption based on what occurs with organ donation. From everything I have read in the past, if the deceased is a candidate but has not expressed any wishes to be an organ donor, the decision is then turned over to next of kin. Presumably, since they are immediately the ones who make the decision over what happens to the remains of their deceased relative, "ownership" of the corpse is theirs. If you want links or further discussions we can take it up in a separate topic about corpses, ownership and necrophilia.

In regards to the dog it's a violation of personal property. As far as I know it is still illegal for me to damage or destroy the private property of my neighbor without some form of compensation or punishment from the court.


I thought I had made this clear:Edited

The laws against bestiality, which would effectively prohibit interspecies porn involving a human participant, are an "intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." As the ruling went on to say, "Americans -- even those practicing interspecies relations -- are entitled to respect for their private lives." And I'm sure everybody is capable of reading the last sentence again without me quoting it here.


They are minimal because they are conducted in privacy, in my opinion supporting its defense by the Supreme Court ruling. Even as there may be few prosecutions of persons engaging in bestiality, justice is not being served if a farmer's son is convicted for even a day, much less twenty years to life.

I don't approve of bestiality, but as I have said before, I'm not willing to throw away justice just because I don't like something.

You are correct. Damage or destruction is a violation of personal property. But if you are damaging the dog in a sexual act isn't that animal abuse? Why would it be animal abuse in this situation and not with the actual owner of the pet?

Between the two of us, you are the only one to have said it was animal abuse. Your original scenario was as such:
We have discussed at length the various sexual acts which may be performed by a human participant with an animal. Not every sexual act performed with a dog would classify as a form of abuse.

Ahhh. But you brouhgt up damaging and destruction of property, which the dog is. So you insinuated that the neighbor was damaging the dog in the sexual act. Wouldn't damaging be the same thing as abuse?

I should have included theft. Pardon the omission.

No one can use another's property without their permission (including animals). No one should abuse or torture animals, so if there is evidence of neglect or maltreatment prosecution is in order.

I am having trouble understanding the objections here. I find many things personally revolting and disgusting. I don't do them, or think about them (unless I have to for debate on a forum). Legalization is not a form of sanctioning behavior. It simply means an activity is not prosecution worthy. There is no need to condone or argue in favor of beastiality to favor of its legality.

Thank you, nileriver, for the wording for the kids. And that is my primary objection of all degrading and lewd behavior. At an age where parents are still trying to instill the principles of right and wrong, these very impressionable children need to know that sexual intercourse with animals in most countries, and most religions (likely theirs, too) is WRONG.

From the tone of this thread in particular, a young person could infer that anything they want to do, regardless of what their parents might think, should be their right to do as long as it doesn't harm another human being or his/her "property." But there are higher laws to answer to, as evidenced by those of us who aspire to obey them. For that reason, while you might not like my appeals to decency and a sense of right action vs. a sterile should-this-be-kept-illegal argument, I will continue to argue that the practice is immoral and that it is the right of the citizens of my state and 23 others to have on the books and to enforce laws that reflect our concern with right vs. wrong.

And as long as you involve "should" in any of your arguments, you are applying values, whether they come from your religion or a misguided sense that even perverts should be able to indulge in proclivities with animals with impunity.

Lowest of all the values manifested here, to my mind, is waging argument in a thread like this merely to pull somebody else's chain. But it is a right, if not right action.

In Old Testament times the Jews were commanded to slay both the person and the animal involved in sexual perversion. Things are not that bad here.

In this society, many of us prudes believe in the dignity of humanity, and we try to uphold it with our fellows, showing respect and restraint for the greater good. It feels good to have a sense of responsibility toward our fellow man (and woman) in the sense that we know our personal behavior may affect them.

We also believe in redemption, that people who are created in God's image are precious to Him and should be given every opportunity to be forgiven and taken back into the group with acceptance. Since every person deserves a chance to turn away from evil and seek redemption, many of us oppose the death penalty, but not all.

Yes, abs, animal abuse was brought up in this thread EVERY TIME we expressed concern for the welfare of that animal and the possibility that it might be hurt or resisted the advances of the person. But, for the record if it makes it "official," I consider it ABUSE. As a matter of fact, the link that listed the states and the statutes against bestiality (and that is the right spelling) is an organization dedicated to reporting abuse of animals and humans. Anyone who checked that link would see that.

To borrow from Quark in a separate, but related thread:From laws based on morality thread
Laws like those against bestiality are not equitable and just.

And while you might like to view all acts of bestiality as abuse, I think one would be hard pressed to demonstrate such for each individual instance. There would be particular difficulty for a court to determine abuse in such a case where the animal actively participated in the bestial act and where the animal was not physically harmed.

Seems to me that the type of bestiality involved can be brought up in court (might make a good argument for the defense), or with the legislators.

So let's see if the defenders of bestiality step right up to the legislators for change in these "stuffy" states. If it warrants changing the law, it warrants them "coming out" to speak for their "rights." I will not lift a finger for them.

Now, if these people need health care and can't afford it, I'll be right by their side.
When their children need better schools, I'm with them. But their sexual hobby? They'd best keep it to themselves.

I do think that penetrating an animal is worse than the other type of bestiality--but then I could be accused of discriminating against men, couldn't I?

(edited for typo)

Nobody's asking you to personally take up the cause of bestiality anymore than the Christian Coalition is being asked to take up the cause of consentual sodomy between adults.

As to your "keep to themselves" statement, that's precisely what they're doing in the first place. That was kind of the point earlier in saying:

When this thread was introduced to America's Debate where children view the opinions and arguments of the grownups, it became my concern, and not before, probably the same time it became your concern to defend the rights of adults to do what they want to in privacy.

I cannot let this go without reiterating that it is WRONG, whether the law allows it or not. In this case, my state agrees with me. I'm so glad.

No, I'm not part of the Christian Coalition. I don't agree with all of their ideas. But I uphold the dignity of the individual.

see my previous post.

Bestiality even in the colonial period needed evidence of penetration in most places. Often 2 eyewittnesses were needed. It was always a primarily male offence. The book I have discusses in depth how it discredited men in a similar way to witchcraft which tended to discredit women. Do you think that concerns (that it makes the animal filthy and unfit to eat or get other products from, milk etc...or that procreation would happen, as science had not yet ruled that out) of the past were the reason that it was mostly males convicted of buggery? As, I assume based on the text I listed earlier which said only 2 females were ever sentenced for it in that period penetration of the animal was the primary objection. Animals that were buggered were also put to death so clearly the objections against penetration were not on grounds of animal rights at the time. Perhaps the reasoning for outlawing penetration of the animal would be different now? In any case I wanted to note that it has always been a primarily male "crime" not to say that women have not been involved in the past.

It is not the job of any of us here to monitor how minors across the country choose to surf the internet. This is hardly the only subject on the site which might be controversial for a minor to view. This topic and others, though, are all legitimate topics of debate. They are all subject to the rules and guidelines of the site and have abided by them.

And while you are free to disagree and reiterate over and over how wrong you think it is, the focus of the debate is intended to be the legality (rather than morality) of such actions and their pornographic depictions.

http://www.asairs.com/index.html

A friend just gave me this link concerning ASAIRS. I caution our younger viewers that this is only a site for ADULTS. ASAIRS is an organization committed to preventing and stopping the sexual abuse of animals and addresses the health issues of humans and animals.

I will comment on it later.

Actually, there are a lot of things you can't do in the privacy of your home. You can't have sex with a 15 year old in the privacy of your own home, why, because it is immoral! The same applies with this.

CP

Actually, if you are a certain age, you can have sex with a 15 year old.

And its not outlawed because its immoral, its outlawed because someone under 18 is assumed to be a minor. As a minor, the law says that you can be easily manipulated and end up being forced to do something that you wouldn't normally do by an older, domineering adult.

Thats why if your 17 and 1/2, you can't have sex with a 93 year old (legally). But when you turn to the magic 18, anything goes.

*Edited for spelling

http://www.asairs.com/index.html

From the ASAIRS website (I used color and bold type for emphasis):

These are people who need more rights?



In the privacy of their own bedroom or barnyard, eh? Not harming other people's animals? To be sure, a deviant doesn't care about the rights of others. Why should I care about theirs?

There are connections between those who sexually abuse humans and those who sexually abuse animals. Apparently one type of abuse (take your choice) is not sufficient to sate their deviant behavior.

I am more concerned about justice for the humans and animals that are molested than justifying the behavior of a person who has problems with boundaries when it comes to his rights. These deviants need mental help more than they need an o.k. from the government to proceed with their illicit activities.

Some of that site provided by paladin gives excellent reasons on why such a thing should be illegal, then it takes a turn for the worst. Overall it still does not greatly move my opinion on the acts legal status as the site seems rather narrow and almost stealth with motives. It is worth a look though. I would like to see that fellow put his efforts into animal abuse on a whole as he seems rather motivated to say the least.

Thank you for the link PE.

Edited to add.

I was going around looking at various links on the net about such things, and a statistic polling of actual people that do this(insted of calling them evil deviants) varied from time they started pratice. Some did not start this until around 51 years of age. I will add just one link of support on why black and white thinking again does not pay off here.

the link.

The idea of childhood trauma being the root cause in "deviant" social behavior is nothing new. I can give you many links on it, but the whole of the matter is something i don’t think most would want to look at, for the normal things we do to are kids today lead to them in reality also. Such studies into this behavior and reasons of was actually shut down do to the fact so much of it ran against common accepted practices of today’s parents. Needless to say, i doubt all "deviants" that do such a thing as what this thread is about all share such a common background. I do think that Hugo provided such a link in an earlier post.

Quote from a study.
"I also examined the influence of extramarital sex taboos upon crime and violence. The data clearly indicates that punitive-repressive attitudes toward extramarital sex are also linked with physical violence, personal crime, and the practice of slavery. Societies which value monogamy emphasize military glory and worship aggressive gods. "

Depending on where you go and whether you're engaging in hetero- or homosexual sex, Conservpat, it's legal to have sex with 13 year-olds in the United States. As BecomingHuman was good enough to point out, it is for legal reasons rather than simply moral.

In regards to your posting, Paladin E, it confuses cause and effect and appears to present a hasty generalization.

A percentage of violent criminals having engaged in bestiality does not mean that bestiality is in any way a cause of such behavior, as the information appears to suggest. Persons forcing others to engage in bestial acts is more a crime against the person than would necessarily be the act of bestiality itself. There are still those who may engage in bestiality in the privacy of their homes without ever resorting to violent crime or imposing their lifestyle upon another citizen.

If a person in a zoological field commits bestiality with an animal not belonging to them, they are no more in the wrong than if they had experimented, stolen or beaten that animal. The animal is not their property to do as they please.

While you might claim a connection between those who harm animals and those who commit violent crime, all you are doing is confusing cause and effect. You are no more correct in your assessment than reading a prison survey revealing 70% of violent inmates to be smokers and blaming cigarettes for their behavior.

Edited to add: ASAIRS appears to be cut from the same cloth as PETA with a slightly more myopic approach to animal rights.

And that is why people, not animals, are responsible for the criminal act. Having sex with humans is something animals wouldn't normally do. It takes the human to want to have it. Again, bulls don't rape cowboys.



If it's a sexually-based offense, yes--bestiality is entirely relevant to the other criminal behavior! That's not so hard to see. I force animals, let's graduate to women. It's a power trip by the penetrators--all rape is.

You see children pulling the wings off flies or the legs off daddy long-leg spiders--usually the parent disapproves. So the kid graduates to putting firecrackers into the hind ends of frogs and lighting them (I actually knew a boy who said he did that, fortunately I didn't see him do it)...clearly kids like these have a mean streak and need to be shown the error of their ways. Establishment of respect for life determines what kind of an adult this child will become. Character matters.

I assert that people who sexually abuse animals have a mean streak--and I would most assuredly keep my dog, my child and myself away from him if I knew. And I would report him in a heartbeat.

Jeffrey Dahmer had a record of animal abuse, sexual and otherwise, that was unearthed when he was tried for the sex killings of teenage boys. Who knows if he could have been stopped from moving up the food chain to humans if he had been effectively dealt with when he was abusing animals.

In regard to the ASAIRS data, I'm sure your comments can be e-mailed to them if you'd like. Maybe they just need to polish up their data gathering and extrapolation.

The error is in criminalizing bestiality on the assumption that each practitioner is automatically going to grow up and rape somebody. It's a fallacy. Just as not every kid who fries an ant with a magnifying glass, taunts a neighbor's pet, or ties a frog to an M-80 grows up to shoot coeds from a water tower, not every practitioner of bestiality is going to grow up to be a sexual predator posing a threat to society.

By the reasoning you are presenting here, we should file charges against anybody who pulls the wings off flies, legs off spiders, etc. Who knows, right? We won't, though, because these actions simply do not pose a threat to society. Speculating that such behavior will inherently escalate into a threat simply isn't going to cut it.


This is the second time you have limited yourself on this matter. Dogs engage sexually when they hump a person. I have already provided you a link discussing such behavior as routine for canines. Some animals may actively participate in a sexual act with a human. Regardless, you appear to be falling back on this idea of consent. The website you provided (ASAIRS) does the same, neglecting the simple fact that animals aren't required to consent to activities done with or to them.


Another fallacy: Guilt by association

No, but I'd spank their little butts and talk to them about respect for life. I kill flies. I generally leave daddy long-legs alone. Killing an insect quickly is one thing; torturing it is another.



How many of them does it take to warrant the attention of law enforcement to the correlation between bestiality and violence toward humans?

No, the act of having sexual relations with the animal is bad enough, as evidenced by the penalty written in Michigan's statute. We don't need to wait to see whether the assumption that the deviant will molest children or teenagers or another adult is accurate or not. Why should we wait? The person has committed a crime; it is on the books.

In the 1800's, slaves were chattel. Suppose a plantation owner's wife could have one of the males come in and service her, you'd have had to ask him if he wanted to or not--but he probably wasn't asked. The law was wrong; it was immoral. As you pointed out, property cannot give its consent. And apparently achievement of an erection and ejaculation translates to the animal enjoying it. Good thing--if the animal wasn't given a choice.

Animals are beings, too. And we are schizoid in our approach to animals, some of them being for food, some of them being our pets. But it looks like we have adjusted to the inconsistencies.

There is no way in hell I will adjust my thinking to the idea that bestiality is worthy of any acceptance.

Now if you'd like, you can launch a campaign to gain acceptance of this if you think that fornicators of animals are getting such a raw deal (pun intended--it's the animals getting the raw deal). But I doubt you will. To you this is an exercise in rhetoric (I presume--correct me if I'm wrong); you are not really out to change anything but to try to convince me and whoever else that we've got it wrong and we are doing a "terrible injustice" to a randy segment of the population.

I am serious about this. It is wrong, and the law in Michigan and in 23 other states should remain for prosecution of those who have sex with animals.

(edited to correct typo--I'm tired and going to bed )

Abs & Becoming Human

Twice now I have suggested that actively legalisating to allow bestiality could be used as a precedent by paedophiles to advance the idea that, under some circumstances, sex with children would be okay.

I have deliberately avoided suggesting that it should be made illegal in states where, for some reason lost in history, it was never legislated against. I am only interested in the precedents that could be set by an active change in state law.

Both times I have been told that animals are property and have no rights, and children are persons protected by all the basic rights of life, liberty etc.

I can't be explaining what I'm trying to get at very well.

I accept that animals have no rights, and are property, and as such, within the constraints of cruelty legislation (which nobody here is arguing against), they can be "loved". They have no protected right to consent or initiate, so if a person wants to be the active or passive party in an act of "animal love", that is solely their concern. (That's your argument in summary, right? Tell me if it isn't.)

Now, there is (as far as I know) no specific part of the US constitution that recognises the rights of individuals to any sexual practices. It is assumed to be a private matter between consenting humans, or between one consenting human and their property, be that a labrador, an apple pie, a wall with a hole in it, or whatever. Again, this is a cornerstone of your argument, right?

The only thing mitigating against "animal love" is the state laws in those 24 states that have such laws, which you argue they have no business doing anyway, from your libertarian standpoint.

Now (bear with me on this), the ability of children to consent to sex is deemed a matter for state law. It differs from state to state. The constitution has nothing to say about it, (nor, I assume, should it, from a purely libertarian standpoint). (Electoral consent is specifically referred to in the constitution and so is not up for negotiation.)

So, the only thing that mitigates against "child love" is the state laws that say only people over XX years in age can give consent to sex. Under that (arbitrary) age, children are not considered able to give their consent, even if they wanted to. At a fundamental, and constitutional, level, children have the same rights not to be abused as anyone else does, but their "rights" to express their human sexuality - assuming that individuals have the right to do anything provided it harms nobody else, as is the libertarian position - are curtailed by the various state laws on the age of sexual consent.

In effect, the only legal reason that child sex that doesn't involve cruelty is illegal is that it's "disgusting" (which I trust we agree that it is) - precisely the same argument that you use to suggest that anti-bestiality legislation that is already on the books should be removed.

Do you see how that argument could be used to justify the removal of anti-paedophilia legislation? The legal case for doing so would be almost identical to yours, even though the reasons for the analogous (but not identical) sexual status in law of children and animals are entirely different.

Because these differences have not been spelled out in law, but are intepreted from other sources, the rights of children could be presented by the likes of NAMBLA as defending their "right" to be sexual beings, their "right" to bestow their sexuality on whoever they choose.

This argument would not support child abduction, or allow any sexual contact with children unless the child wished it. But that's not much protection - paedophiles often pride themselves on being able to seduce children into giving "consent". As has been mentioned, such legal protection as children do currently have is predicated on their tendency to be easily influenced.

Please understand, in none of this am I suggesting "if you support decriminalisation of bestiality, you must also support the same for paedophilia". What I am saying is that your argument could have the unintended, and I'm sure on your part undesirable, consequence of smoothing the road for those people who do wish have a free hand (or other anatomical extremity) with children.

So I think that, in the wider context, it would be wiser to leave the legal status of bestiality as it is. Don't make it illegal where it isn't already, and by all means review the sentencing to fit the crimes involved, but don't abolish all barriers to it where they already exist. If someone wants to "love" animals so much, they can cross a state line or two. Everyone's happy.

On sentencing, which seems to be at the core of nileriver's concerns, I think any more than five years's jail - let alone the 30+ mentioned - is silly, even for outright animal cruelty. Letting one's alsatian have its wicked way, or just letting it lick gravy from parts of the human anatomy rather than from a dog bowl, - that should be worth a fine, not imprisonment. Perhaps with compulsory psychotherapy (similar to the conditional discharges given to drug addicts if they go into rehab.) Filming it? Another fine, somewhat heftier, together with the confiscation and destruction of the filmed material. But it should still be illegal, for all the reasons outlined.

There is a maturation process which is taken into consideration for American citizens across a wide arena of issues. We have an age at which we can drive, an age at which we can vote, an age at which we can drink and an age at which we can consent to sex with an adult. We recognize through law that young Americans are required to grow and mature before being granted certain additional rights in this country, the right to consentual sex with an adult being one of them.

It's not illegal because it's disgusting but because the federal government recognizes that while children are granted inalienable rights at birth, there are other rights they must grow into. As they age and mature, they go beyond the rights afforded to them at birth to include the right to consentual sex with persons above a certain age, the right to legally drive our highways, the right to vote and the right to imbibe alchohol.

There is a legal precedent for age of consent laws.


Michigan wrote it as a sidebar to prohibiting consentual sodomy, Paladin. It is clear that the foundations of that law are incorrect, as reflected by the Supreme Court ruling I've now shared on several occasions. Trying to argue based on Michigan law, you might as well be saying: "No, the act of having sexual relations with a person of the same sex is bad enough, as evidenced by the penalty written in Michigan's statute. We don't need to wait to see whether the assumption that the deviant will molest children or teenagers or another adult is accurate or not. Why should we wait? The person has committed a crime; it is on the books."

Bestiality is no more synonymous with pedophilia and rapists than homosexuality is. The same reasons anti-sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme Court are the same bestiality should be. So far the only thing I have seen presented to differentiate between consentual sodomy for adults and sodomy with animals is the consent argument, which has been put down repeatedly.


It's a discussion of justice. According to the Supreme Court, even those practicing bestiality should be protected in their persona, private lives. The same rights you have to do what you like in the bedroom, and homosexuals have to do in their bedroom, are granted without discrimination to those practicing bestiality. Living in Kentucky I have actually met and expect I might possibly meet again people who have admitted to certain acts of bestiality. Justice would not be served having these persons incarcerated for any length of time.

It doesn't matter if you think it is wrong. I'm not worried about convincing you or anybody else, Paladin E. You can cry about it 'til the cows come home, but disagreeing with it isn't reason enough for it to be illegal. You can have moral objections to something which is completely legal to do.


The law in Michigan is already in jeopardy as a result of the Supreme Court ruling based around the Fourteenth Amendment. Bestiality is prohibited for the same reasons as consentual sodomy among citizens of the United States. That reasoning has since been shown to not be in the interest of justice.

Edited to add: From the majority morality and decency standpoint, bestiality is wrong. Nobody should be encouraged to participate in such activity, nor should they expect to be free from criticism. Those of us who own pets, and are not into bestiality, would never dream of harming our animals in any way, least of all sexually. Many pet owners will attest to the personality and feelings of their animals; we may often consider the difference between them and a relative to be incredibly thin.

Sadly, some people do choose to engage with their animals sexually. For those of us with a love of animals, and who share the common objections to such behavior, it's horrible to think about. Unfortunately, animals are not afforded the status in our society to be justly protected from such behavior. As horrible as we may agree such actions to be, there would be no justice imprisoning a person for sex with cattle and canines while private businesses are allowed to legally experiment on, manipulate and slaughter the same animals.

Whatever our personal objections, however horrible these actions may be for those of us with pets to conceive, we can't set aside justice to condemn our fellow citizens. Our nations is ripe with controversial subjects and behavior that must be allowed by law if we are to live in a free country. This just happens to be one of them.

If I could just add one thing i am sure those that could be labeled sick and deviant come from all walks of life and what is thought of as perfect homes. Saying that people who practice the act in this thread are all innately evil, or sick human beings harkens back to Victorian era sanitariums and females spending life there for pregnancy out of wedlock.

The whole idea of it is morality can be just as a destructive tool as it can benefit society. Throwing around terms like deviant or sicko does not help anything and for the most part I am sure even in the act people find so disgusting the people themselves have no mental disorders or things we would label so in this day and age.

The data used in the website provided by PE is wrong in it uses people that society would label deviant to aid in the fight against bestiality while many others would then fall under said label without being it. I am sure once again that plenty of things society disagrees with come from "normal" people. To go with jeffery Dahmer for instance, he came from a normal home and was very religious, and look how he turned out, so for the simple association of all bestiality must be by people like Dahmer, one could argue that all religious people are like Jeffery Dahmer, you see the error in that i hope. It still is only illegal in said states as far as I can see on the base value of morality of some, the laws themselves that make it illegal don’t even mention animal cruelty, that is sad to say the least.

Just wondering. If this is such a right granted by the constitution, as Abs likened it to the Supreme Court decision on sodomy. Has the ACLU gotten involved in any animal porn cases?

That's my point, though - different states decide themselves that children become old enough to consent to sex with adults at different times, in some cases as low as 14. In your argument, there is no legal precedent to say that a particular state could not drop the consent age to ten years, five years, or five months, if they chose to do so and went through due process to pass that law, is there?

Any more than there would be if a state decided to drop the alcohol consent age from 21 down to 18 or 16, or to let kids drive as soon as they can reach the pedals unassisted, instead of waiting until they are 16. Morality campaigners would be able to argue against it, but there is no overarching constitutional position that would prevent them doing so, as there would be to prevent the legalisation of rape or murder.

A case could be made for both such changes, and if these are the only precedent that protect our children from paedophiles campaigning to change the current "morailty-based" legislation (you seem to have accepted my contention that that is the only thing that does protect them), then I think you are standing on quicksand.

While the ceiling appears to be 18 in accordance with the right to vote, I suppose a state could lower the age of sexual consent however low they wish. I fail to see how a case for lowering the age could be extrapolated from the legal practice of bestiality. Age of consent has nothing to do with animals as animals aren't asked or allowed to consent.

Considering consent is never an issue with an animal, how is a pedophile going to argue that children under the age of consent laws are fair game for consentual sex no matter what the state says?

It seems to me that without the ability to consent, a pedophile might as well argue his case on the basis of sex with inanimate objects. Regardless of the child's age who a pedophile might engage with, that child would still need to consent to the act. Whether it be at 13 years of age, 5 years or the day of its first words (which would presumably have to be yes). Whatever the age, a human sexual partner has to consent. In contrast, the consent of another species is never required regardless of its age.

If pedophiles what to argue about the bar set by consent laws, they can do it now regardless of whether bestiality is legal in their state or not. The legal status of bestiality in 26 of the states has no bearing on it and neither would the repeal of bestiality laws in the other 24.

As I see it:
1) Humans must consent to sex regardless of age.
2) Animals have no right to consent regardless of age.
3) Pedophiles have no case on the basis of bestiality.

Sleeper: I didn't find anything regarding the ACLU and animal porn specifically, but they have inadvertantly defended it in their lawsuits against internet censorship, identifying the internet as an "international free flow of ideas and information." According to them, it is not the place of the government to criminalize internet material -- even that which might be construed as "harmful to minors" or "sexually explicit" -- but rather the place of parents to censor material by way of censorship software.

Bestiality -- and by association, interspecies pornography -- was touched upon by Supreme Court Justice Scalia in his dissent regarding the Texas anti-sodomy ruling: "[s]tate laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity .... Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision."

Abs,
This may be a shade off topic, but you keep telling us the law should be changed.

Laissez Faire government is not a real world option in today’s United States. There are a number of theories of how government should function, such as Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Republics, Communism, Libertarianism, Fundamentalist Religions, etc. The concept that he who governs least, governs best is all well and good; but in the real world, with a few exceptions, laws are passed through the legislative branches and signed into law by the executive branches in this country. They are then subject to review or enforcement by the Judicial Branch.


Our legislators are elected. Our Governors are elected. For the most part, our Presidents are elected. Even faced with term limits, most of them look forward to a continued career in politics, through lobbying jobs, as advisers, or writing books. They try to enact laws which appear to be in the general interest of the populace, but they are also dealing continuously with lobbyists. Let me illustrate this from personal experience:

OSHA
I worked for an employer that was very proud of its safety program and low injury rates. Their workmen’s compensation rates, however, reflected general industry. In order to level the playing field, they allied themselves with labor unions and like minded large corporations and lobbied successfully for the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

Faced with rising health care costs, they sought to reduce off the job injuries as well. This was accomplished in part by educating employees and their families. They also lobbied successfully for mandatory seat belt usage, Baby seats, and Child Seats and Restraints in automobiles, motorcycle helmet laws, and home safety standards. Those are the legislative battles that I was aware of. I’m certain there were many more.

My ex wife was a licensed home day care provider. As such, organizations she worked with asked her to help lobby for Child restraints, Mandatory Seat Belt Usage, Mandatory use of Baby Seats, etc. Thus periodically, she would travel to Lansing to testify before appropriate committees. She became acquainted with a legislator by the name of David Hollister. The sign on his wall or his desk, it’s been a couple decades, read:
He asked for her help when people wanted to eliminate day care licensing, and simply provide for the necessity for them to register with the government. For a couple of years, I would take a day’s vacation while she went to Lansing to testify before committees on the benefits of licensing. Ultimately, it reached a point where one woman was testifying for Registration, and my wife was testifying that the licensing process allowed the state to do background checks, place safety requirements, do home inspections etc. to protect the children. One month the other woman didn’t appear to testify. A bill was reported out of committee which in essence continued all of the licensing requirements, but renamed it Day Care Registration. Once out of committee, it went through both houses and on to the Governor’s desk in about a week.

I met David Hollister at a lecture on child abuse once. I discussed people that my mother had interacted with who felt obligated to protect confidentiality. Michigan law now says that teachers, Doctors, ministers, and others who interact with children professionally must report suspected child abuse. One of my daughter’s teachers objected to that concept with an argument that she suspected abuse every time she met a teenager. She assigned all of her students to outline the abuse they received from parents, relatives, ministers, etc. At the end of the day, she turned in several hundred complaints as a way to clog the system and make it unworkable. So… My wife was charged with child abuse, investigated, and cleared.

On a simple scale, that is how laws are changed legislatively.

In real life, it’s more complex. Large corporations, large or important donors, friends, etc. may approach a Congressman with a bill completely drafted and ready for a vote. Favors are traded, votes are traded, party obligations are called in, and people are asked to write letters to their congressmen and their newspapers. What we are debating in these forums is read, and people react to it. By pointing out that bestiality is legal in 26 states, you may have started someone on a campaign to change that.

You have asked me if I would sentence someone to 15 years in prison for such behavior. In my state, the length of a sentence is determined by the judge in a separate hearing after a person is found guilty. As a layman, I have absolutely no influence over sentencing.

Once a person is arrested, and a DA files a complaint, the court system enters into the process. At this point, the alleged perpetrator can choose to represent himself, ask for a public defender, or hire a private attorney. His options in Michigan are to plead guilty, plead guilty with an explanation, plead nolo contendere, or plead not guilty. If he pleads not guilty, he is entitled to a jury trial if charged with a felony where the conviction could result in more than one year in prison. (At least this is the guideline I have been given every time that I was on jury duty.) He may also choose to stand trial before a judge. Every time I was on jury duty, I found myself listening to a public defender that was more wrapped up in his skills as a barrister than willing to realize that his client might actually go to prison. The classic was a man accused of indecent exposure. He was arrested wearing Bermuda shorts, but two young girls testified they had been able to see his private parts. If the attorney had left his client off the stand, we likely would have let him off. He allowed his client however to leave the witness box, while still under oath and walk along the rail of the jury box so that we could see what the young girls had seen. (Yes he really was that well equipped.)

The private attorney who says “I can probably plead this down from my office for $300 an hour or represent you in court for $1,000 an hour.” may be fascinated by your arguments on what the ideal law should accomplish under an ideal government. He may happily espouse your arguments until you go broke, but that is no guarantee that a judge or an appeals court will accept those arguments. As a juror, nothing in this thread would persuade me that I should argue for the jury to overturn the law.

One can’t file an appeal unless one is convicted after pleading not guilty. To the best of my knowledge, only if it reaches an appeal stage, can anyone but a legislator legally challenge a law on Constitutional grounds. The last case that I followed with interest as it was challenged by private citizens on Constitutional grounds; was when the wealthy subdivision near the hospital in Midland was ordered by the city to install public sidewalks at homeowner’s expense. In order to maintain ownership of their homes, they had to post a bond equal to the assessed cost of installing the sidewalks, pay their attorneys and post a bond equal to the city’s legal fees as they fought it clear to the United States Supreme Court, and lost. They now have some very expensive sidewalks in that subdivision.

You have argued that we should not find bestiality illegal, that the law should be changed, etc. I found it a repugnant topic of conversation thirty years ago, and you have done nothing to change my mind. I see no compelling public interest in finding a new way to spread zoonoses. If you wish to take up this battle and change the law, it is a long and fascinating process. Elspeth and I will be contacting the appropriate Congressmen though to explain our opposition if those proposed changes would effect Michigan. I have seen no reason why we, as citizens who find the practice repugnant, should contact our legislators and argue for legalizing the behavior. It would be a totally inconsistent and irrational behavior on our part.

On the show cops, i do watch it now and then, one thing that always escapes common knowledge is the total effect being charged with a crime and going to prison has. When you are turned over the a custodian such as a federal prison, not only do you lose a lot of your rights, you lose your life. This could be your job, maybe your friends and family, and such people that may be dependent on you lose out to. The argument is two sided, as the person should have realized this before committing the act. The point being is bestiality laws have it as a crime for no reason, there is no wording on why or how its a crime. More or less its just a crime because those that make it so find it gross. So in the fact a person, for all we know or want to was not hurting or damaging anything loses all of this possibly along with a lengthy prison sentence for something someone finds gross.

I would work against bestiality on the base of animal harm, that is the only reason i could ever see for making it illegal. To correctly do this would be by giving animals rights in a sense that could be applied to all kinds of things, like when you buy a lobster or some veal because its yum-yum good. More or less these same people that think it is an outrage to engage in biological functions with an animal or have the animal engage with them, don’t mind killing baby cows for taste of meal, or a million other things that so easy could be labeled a moral outrage because they all go around human stimulation in one form or another. To just go into another area, maybe we should ban female or male blow up dolls or sexual aids for married couples, those are pretty gross to, just dont take away latex dress for females, that would make me become a lawyer

Having reviewed my one response to your first posting, I don't see where I asked you if you would sentence a person to 15 years in prison for bestiality, Curmudgeon. I'm well aware neither you or I have any influence over sentencing.

In regards to changing minds, petitions and contacting legislators, all we are doing here is debating. This isn't a rally; I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about the subject. All we are doing here is discussing whether or not it should be legal for persons to produce, distribute, and view interspecies pornography with human participants -- which has necessarily led us to discuss the legality of bestiality in itself.

I have presented you with the answer to your question in regards to why I feel bestiality should be legal. While you did ask specifically about going to your legislator, I'm not concerned with convincing you to do so. All I'm doing here is providing the legal basis of why it should be legal, whether you or Paladin personally agree or not.

In addition to establishing my argument around the Supreme Court ruling dealing with the "personal, private life of the individual" and "their private sexual conduct", Justice Scalia also expressed this view in his dissent to the sodomy ruling:
People don't have to agree that bestiality should be legal. They don't have to campaign to have the law changed. Just as there were those who felt consentual sodomy between adults should remain illegal, and in fact campaigned against its legalization, their disagreement and disgust was still not reason enough to keep the practice illegal.

Bestiality appears to have been banned for the same purposes as consentual sodomy, purely on the basis of being an "immoral act." With the court overruling morality in favor of the citizens right to privacy, any legal battle that might result over bestiality would need new reasoning for prohibiting the practice.

Just as the sodomy laws went largely unchallenged until the arrest and prosecution of two Texas homosexuals, bestiality laws may one day find themselves seriously challenged upon the arrest of a person on bestiality charges. At such a time, it is likely the defense may turn to the recent Supreme Court ruling to protect their client on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Without new provisions, and in light of the recent ruling, bestiality should be grantd the same protection by law as consentual sodomy, provided a fair ruling was issued. In order to place privacy over morality and allow consentual sodomy, all while striving to keep bestiality illegal, there will need to be other reasoning for continuing the prohibition of bestiality by law.

Edited to add: Considering the ACLU position on internet censorship, I'm actually not sure bestiality need be a legal practice for the interspecies porn to be legal after all. The judge presiding over the case in question ruled in favor of the ACLU's position, declaring the Internet as "an international free flow of ideas and information."

Another problem also expressed about laws censoring Internet material is that state laws could not "regulate interstate commerce and regulate conduct that occurs" outside the state. (specifically Michigan in this case)

Interspecies porn could originate from any of the 26 states in which bestiality is legal, and could furthermore originate from other nations where the practice is legal. As I read this, it may not be possible for interspecies porn to be prohibited by law even if the practice of bestiality is.

Bah, I'm not asking you to change the law. I simply wanted to know whether or not the law was based on something other than morals.

The reason that you have given me is that it is illegal is that, currently, it is already illegal and you dont feel like fixing it (thus helping out those "zoonoses").

I still have not seen a legal reason that a citizen cannot use one of his possessions in private in anyway he chooses.

At least the law is virtually unenforced. it would irritate me much more if people were constantly getting arrested for it, which they are not.

But I'm not saying that, am I? Again, it makes all the difference that the sexual practice is between consenting adult humans. Try as you might to drag me into the homosexual clause of the statute, I'm not going to go there, because I believe that mature, sentient beings of the same species have the right to consensual relations with each other whether it is with the opposite sex or not. It's a done deal. They have the right, and without my help, even.

People will no doubt manage to do what they want to whether there is a law in place or not, but not on my dime and not with my endorsement. They might take a moment and be thankful that I am the one arguing against bestiality, and not my (departed) father. He would have just gone out and beaten the hell out of a violater of animals just to keep in practice.

Unlike my dad, I am against violence if it can be avoided, right up to the international level. But I have no qualms about the incarceration of deviants who abuse animals, regardless of what position they are found in when they are caught in the act.

(edited to correct misspelled word)



You know, this statement can be taken way out of context in many ways, like assembling a bomb in your bedroom--the components are your possessions and you're doing it in private, right?

But there is that pesky thing called the public good, and if you happen to have a nosy neighbor who sees what you are doing and calls the police, you're in a heap of trouble, because the principle remains. Especially these days when we have the Patriot Act and its sister act. We don't live completely unto ourselves; we are part of a greater community. And community standards, while they may be stale, stodgy or plain unfair in your thinking, prevail, especially when the law is on the books.

The laws are there--in 24 states. Better check your state.

One call to the ACLU and you may have a pretty good team of lawyers working for you. It seems the latest USSC ruling on the Texas sodomy laws applies to beastiality also, just as Sanitorum stated. The principle of individual freedom is important here, the principle that each man should remain soveriegn over his own body.

A quote from Kennedy's majority opinion in the Texas sodomy case



Yes, I realize Kennedy refers to two adults mutually consenting, but I think it is already well established that animals are seldom given the benefit of having to consent to actions inflicted by human beings. I don't see slaughterhouse workers referred to as mass murderers. That nosy neighbor need to recognize that there are laws against peeping Toms that are constitutional. The Constitution gives zoophiles the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention from government.

I'm not suggesting you are saying anything against consentual sodomy, nor am I trying to get you to, Paladin E. The law you are attempting to base your argument on, however, bans them both under the same premise of immorality. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that privacy comes before immorality, in order for that law to be defended in a court of law, it would have to find some other basis for its existence. Thus far nobody has offered any new reasoning as to why it should remain on the books.

In regards to the bomb scenario, there's a pretty significant difference between the two. A bomb is a threat to society whereas bestiality is not. I'm actually not sure what laws might specifically address the building or possessing of a bomb in a household. A bomb, however, is of interest to the state, as opposed to bestiality which is not.

With the Supreme Court ruling there simply isn't a legal argument for keeping bestiality on the books anymore. It doesn't matter if you or I contact a legislator about either side of the matter. Just as with Texas and anti-sodomy laws, bestiality is merely awaiting its day in court. Without some reasoning other than immorality it will succumb to the right of a citizen to their personal and private sexual life.

Regardless of the legality of bestiality in the 24 states holding on to now impotent law*, it would appear interspecies porn distributed across the internet will still be legal across the United States.

*Paladin E, while the law may remain on the books at the present, it is unlikely to be enforced again. For the same reasons the provision prohibiting consentual sodomy is now invalid, so too is the provision regarding bestiality. Any attempt to prosecute would be met with the defense under the Fourteenth Amendment and the recent Supreme Court ruling. In other words: acquittal.

Unless the law can be supported by something other than immorality, the first time any state attempts to prosecute for bestiality will likely be the last time, and the moment at which such laws are eliminated from the books.